In Big Cities, Welfare , ( not, a handup , by private charity ) , is considered normal and acceptable , in smaller communities , it is not desired. In these cities , currently, there are huge populations of tax ticks that have been this way , and those before them in the family were as well. This was the example set for them. Only way you can possibly improve this ( break the cycle ) ? End all publicly funded Welfare. Simple as that . This is not possible , because the Socialist Politicians are in control ( enablers ) and there are enough recievers to out vote those that pay . The takers , out number , the producers.

Last time I looked , 20 % of LA County recvd some Welfare , if I recall , I grew up ,near a town of, slightly less than 50 K. I knew the guy who ran the Local United Way , he knew the name of all 90 some families in the County , on Welfare.

I don't know why people are better educated, less religious and modern socially liberal in certain states. It just is? And that just happens to be where most of the high tech centers and all of the financial centers are located.

I don't know if that is true. Utah and the Dakotas have some of the highest incomes and they are solidly red states.

A more interesting point is why are states with the biggest unfunded public sector liabilities and biggest per capita budget short falls blue states? If you look at any list with any metric, eight or nine out of the top 10 states in the worst financial shape are blue states. The worst states like Illinois and California are solidly blue.

...why haven't Republicans had more success rejuvenating the economies of deep red states? Why are so many deeply conservative states among the worst performers on a range of statistics, from output and income, to educational attainment, to life expectancy and literacy?

Red states are also more likely to be net receivers of government benefits compared to the amount of tax dollars they send to Washington while blue states are more likely to be net contributors to the government.

Red states are also more likely to be net receivers of government benefits compared to the amount of tax dollars they send to Washington while blue states are more likely to be net contributors to the government.

Well, that would present a dichotomy, wouldn't it? Almost a glaring hypocrisy, were it not for the mind-numbingly fallacious implications, and for a number of reasons. The biggest of which is the conflation of VOTERS and STATE, as if they were the same thing. They are not. Another is the ridiculous aggregated "per capita" reckoning, with the bizarre implication that all voters in the state are somehow evenly distributed recipients and beneficiaries of state spending. They are not.

Spending by state is all reckoned in the aggregate only. That's ALL federal funding to the state, which includes all federal outlays consisting of:

Retirement, disability, and other direct payments

Grants

Procurement

Salaries and wages

That tells us absolutely nothing about which individuals in a particular state are receiving which benefits, if any. If a state has an enormous federal subsidy in an industry (public or private) that does not result in a benefit to the majority of the voting population (e.g., agriculture or energy), it would be completely disingenuous as well as intellectually dishonest to imply that the VOTERS (wrongly conflated being synonymous with STATE) are "net receivers of government benefits".

Another obfuscating implication involved here, which is aided by a lack of any critical thought applied, is that per capita implies a kind of one-to-one Give vs. Receive-In-Return relationship. That's utter bull$#@!. The massive amounts of retirees living on pensions in Florida are paying out very little in Federal taxes, and receiving MASSIVE amounts--but not "in return".

Furthermore, the amounts spent toward one beneficiary in a state is not necessarily an obligation on the parts of other citizens, of any state, let alone others, which are somehow being "subsidized" by taxpayers outside the state.

Likewise those on disability and welfare. What you posted almost implies that there is more federal welfare spending per capita in Red States. Is that true? After all, we are looking BLUE VS. RED, and economic incentives for voting as a function of RECIPIENT benefits.

A little critical thought and a quick drill-down on per capita federal welfare spending per state, and suddenly a different picture emerges. Alaska is actually number two, but it's exceptional and anomalous for a number of reasons. All the rest on the top ten are decidedly blue.

And out of those blue ones in the bottom ten, four are swing states. It's all a question of a willingness to stop aggregating and anthropomorphizing everything, and actually look under all the neatly labeled "State" rocks and see what is actually creepy-crawling underneath each one. Farmers in some red states get massive federal farm subsidies. Does it matter that they're in a distinct minority, or that most people in the state are not farmers, and do not receive a DIME in benefits? Likewise, federal payments to Native Populations? Give me a $#@!ing break.

The devil is not in the meaninglessly aggregated amounts, outgoing or incoming. It's all in the details of the actual distribution.

The "Liars Figure" chart you posted has a disgusting title which asks "Do You Get Back More Than You Pay In Taxes?", because it implies that You=State.

A friend posted this on FB and another of her friends immediately expressed indignation that she was so thoughtlessly insulting so many people. My friend (a customer, actually) works for a school system and is an Obama supporter.

Last edited by Tod; 11-10-2012 at 08:15 PM.

"Sorry, fellows, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit."

Red states are also more likely to be net receivers of government benefits compared to the amount of tax dollars they send to Washington while blue states are more likely to be net contributors to the government.

A friend posted this on FB and another of her friends immediately expressed indignation that she was so thoughtlessly insulting so many people. My friend (a customer, actually) works for a school system and is an Obama supporter.

Awesome. It should read "Most State Indoctrinated" versus "Least State Indoctrinated". And once again, where did those degrees lead to, how were they obtained, and where is the breakdown on where all that "More Educated" bread is being buttered?

Awesome. It should read "Most State Indoctrinated" versus "Least State Indoctrinated". And once again, where did those degrees lead to, how were they obtained, and where is the breakdown on where all that "More Educated" bread is being buttered?

My interpretation, left unsaid, was that what it really illustrates is that, whether highly educated or not, most Americans are still falling for the false Left/Right paradigm.

"Sorry, fellows, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit."

There are some sound economic reasons for two of those states , right off the top of my head without thinking about it . West Virginia , jobs , are coal , so even though they are likely , mostly reg.'d Dems, they do not vote for the coal Terrorist Obummer. Indiana , about 20 % of the jobs are good mnfg jobs that require no degree .Thus , less education, and in that state, education likely to pay off less.They are in the top ten in student debt already, in school there now ? in this economy, wasted money.

Awesome. It should read "Most State Indoctrinated" versus "Least State Indoctrinated". And once again, where did those degrees lead to, how were they obtained, and where is the breakdown on where all that "More Educated" bread is being buttered?

Stalin and Marx were intellectual leaders, IIRC.

* Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

* No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

* Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

* End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.

A friend posted this on FB and another of her friends immediately expressed indignation that she was so thoughtlessly insulting so many people. My friend (a customer, actually) works for a school system and is an Obama supporter.

I wonder what the student debt per capita per state looks like... hmmm.

In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't even a thing nor are capital gains taxes
Constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

Not in US but "highger education" is not always translated into useful knowledge...

"Aroma therapist", "Fashion guru","English literature doctor" (which reminded me of terrible accidents and aroma therapist comes screaming let me through i am aroma therapist ill save him...)..... we need them (maybe) but not so many of them. maybe 1 in a 200.000 but not 1 in a 1000.

Not in US but "highger education" is not always translated into useful knowledge...

"Aroma therapist", "Fashion guru","English literature doctor" (which reminded me of terrible accidents and aroma therapist comes screaming let me through i am aroma therapist ill save him...)..... we need them (maybe) but not so many of them. maybe 1 in a 200.000 but not 1 in a 1000.

I do not see much useful knowledge coming from large population centers, now that you mention it .....

On that graphic, I think the second line is backwards. It should read "The Ratio of Benefits Received to Taxes Paid, by State"

According to the bottom of the chart it shows "Benefits received from the Federal Government for Every Dollar Paid in Federal Taxes"

Another is the ridiculous aggregated "per capita" reckoning, with the bizarre implication that all voters in the state are somehow evenly distributed recipients and beneficiaries of state spending. They are not.

The "per capita" is important because it allows you to compare less populous states with more populous ones. You are right it does not describe every person- that is impossible to list all 300 million people so it looks at the average person which is a very valid way to compare.

In Big Cities, Welfare , ( not, a handup , by private charity ) , is considered normal and acceptable , in smaller communities , it is not desired. In these cities , currently, there are huge populations of tax ticks that have been this way , and those before them in the family were as well. This was the example set for them. Only way you can possibly improve this ( break the cycle ) ? End all publicly funded Welfare. Simple as that . This is not possible , because the Socialist Politicians are in control ( enablers ) and there are enough recievers to out vote those that pay . The takers , out number , the producers.

That, and ending welfare really isn't popular. It's not quite as bad as the Third Rail (social security), but it's pretty nasty.

Originally Posted by Torchbearer

what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.

The "per capita" is important because it allows you to compare less populous states with more populous ones. You are right it does not describe every person- that is impossible to list all 300 million people so it looks at the average person which is a very valid way to compare.

"per capita" is a valid way of eliminating an improper comparison (relative population sizes). But that is only for a starting point for real comparisons that are never made, with data that are completely meaningless without a further breakdown. Take income, for example. INCOME FROM WHERE? Is it publicly or privately sourced? And out of the privately derived sources, are they publicly distorted, and are there any artificial economic advantages provided or enforced by the state? And if so, which kind of state? Would a vote for Blue be personally and potentially more advantageous than a vote for Red? If you're an "educated" but unionized auto worker in Detroit, do think the possibility of subsidies, bailouts, and any legislation that is pro-union might just affect your vote just a teensy bit?

Likewise, "education" is meaningless in the absolute without a further breakdown. Knowing that people are "more educated" is meaningless without knowing WHAT they are 'more educated' about, what careers and income sources are the result, and to which available POOLS these 'more educated' people are likely to drink from afterward. "Education", even "per capita", is treated as if it was some kind of homogenous "Education Level Soup" that everyone was ladling from a single Education Vat. That's utter BS. Is a PhD in art history, with an emphasis on ancient Central African tribal art, comparable in any way to a B.S. in business administration? How about a Masters degree in Social Services versus an Associate Degree in mechanical engineering? All of these conflated, and yet can they even be compared?

I just wish it was not red and blue and had other colors on those charts i.e green for Libertarian. That would start ending some of this chaos and move us towards the right direction.

You could do that by counties, but only if you polled beliefs , not votes. You would end , in the same result , only rural areas, independent people , self worth , no cities ,socialists . The experiment , has failed. I accept it.